Findings Of Fact Respondent, Laverne Reaves, has been employed as a teacher by the Petitioner since the 1966-67 school year and has been a junior high English language arts teacher since the 1971- 72 school year. For the 1982-83 school year and the subsequent years, except for a period of maternity leave, Respondent was employed as an English language arts teacher at Highland Oaks Junior High School (Highland Oaks). Prior to Respondent's assignment to Highland Oaks, her yearly evaluations indicated acceptable performance. In Fall, 1982, the Dade County School Board initiated a pilot program known as the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). Highland Oaks was one of the schools selected for the pilot program. During the time she was at Highland Oaks, beginning with the 1982-83 school year, Respondent failed to demonstrate acceptable teaching in every classroom observation and in every language arts assignment. After an absence due to a back injury, Respondent reported to Highland Oaks at the end of September or at the beginning of October, 1982, after the beginning of the school years. Respondent missed the teacher orientation session because of her injury. When Respondent arrived at Highland Oaks, Ms. Ruskin, the English language arts department head met with her, as with any new teacher, to orient her to the textbooks to be used at each level, course outlines, basic curriculum, and the teacher manuals. Parents of the students began registering complaints the second day Respondent taught at Highland Oaks, and continued to complain on a regular basis. One of the major complaints was that the children were being taught at a level beneath their ability. These were Level III students (average-above average ability) who were being taught as Level II students (below average ability). Due to a scheduling error, Respondent believed that one class of Level III student was Level II. The complaints came not only from the class in which the administrative scheduling error was made, but also from other classes. The error was soon corrected. The parents also complained about Respondent's preparation for the classes and her knowledge and ability to teach. In addition to not teaching on the level of the students; she was assigning them book reports that were at a very elementary level. She was using textbooks that were far below their level. Her language was not appropriate. She assigned work to the class but did not explain it. The parents also complained that Respondent's homework assignments were not meaningful and that when she gave homework, she did not collect it, grade it, return it, or use it as part of the instruction. She wasted a lot of class time going off on tangents. The parents also complained that Respondent lacked control of the classroom and that she did not maintain appropriate relations with the parents. They complained that she called the students names, such as "stupid" and "ignorant," and constantly told the children to "shut up." She was hostile and aggressive and sometimes embarrassed and ridiculed students. The parents stated that Respondent threatened the students if they complained to their parents. The parents wanted to have their children removed from Respondent's class. The children did not want to go to her class. The parents felt that the situation was potentially dangerous as Respondent ignored dangerous situations. Because of the parental complaints, Assistant Principal Sarah Nelson had a conference with Respondent on October 8, 1982. Ms. Ruskin met with Respondent on October 12, 1982, in an effort to assist Respondent in the problems she was having in discipline, assigning homework, and general curriculum problems. Ms. Ruskin provided additional materials to Respondent in an effort to help her. These included books, tests, balanced curriculum, classroom materials, semester course outlines, SAT outlines, and publications about writing, course objectives for advanced level students, and suggested activities for lower level students. Other teachers in the department offered help, as well. Although Ms. Ruskin indicated that she was available to help in any way, Respondent never came to her for assistance. Respondent was officially observed in her seventh grade English Level II class on October 13, 1982, by Ms. Nelson. Respondent was rated overall unacceptable, and specifically, unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the classroom activities did not reflect evidence of effective instructional planning and Respondent had not turned in lesson plans on a regular basis, as required. The objectives were too general and the homework was not specific enough. The expectations for Level III students were not higher than for Level II students. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she failed to adapt materials and methods to the interests, needs and abilities of her students, e.g., Level II versus Level III students, and she did not use instructional strategies for teaching the subject matter to the different levels. Her level of questioning was not done in enough depth. Her lesson lacked closure, i.e., review, recap. She failed to explain words which needed explanation. Spelling and vocabulary were to be done on a weekly basis, and yet, Respondent had only given one spelling test since the beginning of school. The homework did not have any meaningful value and the students who did the homework were not rewarded by having it collected. Students who did not do the homework were not penalized in any way. Although classroom management was rated acceptable; Mrs. Nelson was concerned that it took Respondent 20 minutes out of a 50-minute period to have the class begin working. There was too much movement in the room, which distracted students who were trying to read. Mrs. Nelson recommended that Respondent establish and enforce classroom rules. Mrs. Nelson further recommended that Respondent clearly state her objectives in the next week's lesson plans and that those objectives be differentiated for the two levels taught. Mrs. Nelson discussed the deficiencies in Respondent's lesson plans with her approximately a dozen times. Mrs. Nelson also offered to make sure that Respondent had the proper books and materials and that if she needed any additional help, she would be happy to help her and indicated that Ms. Ruskin would also be able to assist. Respondent was next formally observed on November 9, 1982, by Dr. Mildred Augenstein, principal, in her seventh grade Level III class. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management; and techniques of instruction. Based on the observation of October 13, 1982, and her own observation, Dr. Augenstein established a written prescription to help Respondent remedy her problems. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in preparation and planning at the November 5, 1982, observation, Dr. Augenstein made specific recommendations as to preparation and planning because of the unacceptable ratings on October 13, 1982. These included turning in lesson plans weekly to Mrs. Nelson. They were to be done in depth, separately for Level II and Level III classes. They were to contain specific components and were to reference the Balanced Curriculum, a School Board rule on course objectives. The requested actions were to be completed by December 3, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made errors in subject matter, e.g., inaccurate definition of science fiction. She read off words for a spelling test without giving the students a sentence in which they could hear the words. This confused the children. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in upgrading her preparation in English language arts. These included specific exercises in the TADS prescription manual dealing with knowledge of the subject matter, to be completed by December 8, 1982. Respondent was also instructed to contact the Teacher Education Center (TEC) to identify any course offerings in the area of language arts by December 15, 1982. Respondent was to visit other language arts classrooms in order to observe the different levels of instruction prior to December 15, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students spoke at will without raising hands. There was a constant undercurrent of conversation, and Respondent kept "shushing" them as a whole group without dealing with the specific behavior of individuals and making corrections. Respondent did not begin the class promptly. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in classroom management. These included beginning classes promptly and establishing a set of simple class rules and following through on them by December 15, 1982. Respondent was directed to investigate a course on assertive discipline or teacher effectiveness training and to enroll in a TEC course in classroom management by March, 1983. Respondent was directed to review the faculty handbook which contained the rules and regulations of the school and was asked to work with the assistant principal, Mr. Fontana, to set up a set of classroom rules. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because she failed to employ techniques which provided stimulating, varied and productive learning experiences for the students. Her lesson was not sequenced properly in that no background was given and there was no follow-through at the end as to what had been accomplished. When the students tried to ask questions for clarification, Respondent failed to answer them. The students were very confused. Respondent failed to anticipate the problems that the students would have in the lesson. Dr. Augenstein prescribed required actions for remediation and recommended resources to which Respondent could turn for help in improving her techniques of instruction. These included the TADS manual exercise on questioning skills, verbal interaction, effective teaching strategies, and instruction sequence; to be completed by January 15, 1983. Respondent needed to learn how to ask questions which led the students into more critical thinking and analytical skills, and not simply ask low level recall questions. Respondent was to demonstrate at least one new teaching approach by January 15, 1983. Parent complaints continued and culminated in a meeting on November 23, 1982, between a group of 19 parents and the principal. The principal held a meeting with Respondent on November 29, 1982, to discuss those complaints. Thereafter, the complaints continued and were far in excess of any that the principal had ever received about any other teacher. On December 13, 1982, the principal directed a memorandum to Respondent regarding her failure to comply with provisions of the previous prescription. Respondent had failed to turn in lesson plans as directed and her plans still did not differentiate between Level II and Level III. Children were given simple spelling words, e.g., leg, heat, without being given the purpose for their study. This confused the students as to why they were being made to learn easy words. The students were given a list of adverbs to use in a sentence and the words were not all adverbs. Parent complaints continued. One complaint concerned a disturbance in Respondent's classroom. Rather than dealing with it appropriately, Respondent stated that the two students who were involved should hang themselves. Parents tended to view Respondent as belligerent, abusive, and non-responsive to the academic and emotional needs of the students. On December 14, 1982, Respondent was released from classes to observe other language arts classrooms and to obtain direct assistance from the department head who was also released for the afternoon. Respondent was next formally observed in a seventh grade class on January 6, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent still had not completed her previous prescription. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson plans were not realistic or appropriate and were not followed through. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she used a sentence that lacked a verb, i.e., "what hour you went to bed last night?" She also gave a spelling test of homonyms, but in some of the sentences, she used two of the homonyms, and the students were confused as to which form they were supposed to spell, e.g., "I want to go there too." While Respondent was rated acceptable in classroom management, that category was minimally acceptable. There was still an undercurrent of whispering and very few students were raising their hands before speaking out. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she had difficulty in sequencing the material, explaining and clarifying it. There was no connection made to what the students had previously learned. Respondent was not able to make clear to the students what an inference was. She never went beyond the textbook definition. She did not relate the term to the students' lives. The homework assignment was given very hurriedly and was vague. The students were unsure of what they were supposed to do. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there was no evidence that student compositions were being written, collected, evaluated, and redone. That is a requirement of the Balanced Curriculum. When Respondent returned some papers to the students to look at "for a minute," she did not give them time to assess their progress. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because when a student asked a question, Respondent made no response. The teacher-student interchanges were very cold and condensed, and there was much uneasiness. The teaching climate was hostile, punitive, or retaliatory. Since Respondent had not yet completed the previous prescription, she was directed to continue working on it. On or about January 11, 1983, Dr. Augenstein gave Respondent a list of TEC courses which would be helpful to Respondent in the areas in which she needed remediation. Parent complaints continued. On or about January 19, 1983, a parent complained that the work in her child's Level III class was too elementary. Upon review, Dr. Augenstein concurred. Respondent's class schedule was changed at the end of the first semester in order to give her an opportunity to perform acceptably with students of a lower level and to eliminate some of the parental pressure. It was thought that perhaps she was most familiar with that type of student from her pervious school and that would allow her more time to complete her prescriptive activities. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on February 8, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she mispronounced words, e.g., denouement, architecture. Although "denouement" had been previously pronounced correctly in a filmstrip, Respondent mispronounced it. "Architecture" was pronounced "arch-chi-tek-chur" (as in church) in a lesson dealing with "ch" being used as a "K" sound (as in chaos). This confused the students in the major point of the lesson. Classroom management was rated unacceptable because after the lunch break, the students did not quiet down until the principal came back into the classroom. Although Respondent was not formally observed during the next period, the principal informally noted the noise coming from Respondent's classroom while she was observing the teacher in the next room. That teacher indicated that Respondent's classes were always that noisy. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not clarify or answer student's questions to a degree that was correct or satisfying to the students. She did not encourage and structure student participation. The lesson did not come to an end other than by the ringing of the bell, i.e., no closure. In spite of the fact that Respondent was teaching an entirely different group of students, the problems were a continuation of those seen in the prior observations. Respondent was directed to continue the prescriptive activities from November, 1982. As of the date of this observation, Respondent had not fulfilled her previous prescription. She had not demonstrated the new teaching technique to either Mrs. Nelson or Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Mrs. Nelson on February 17, 1983. She was rated unacceptable in classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the students were noisy and she had a great deal of difficulty getting them settled. There was an undercurrent of noise throughout the whole class period. One student who was blowing bubbles was never reprimanded. Another student continued to get up and down out of her seat. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because there was no focal point to the lesson. Nothing was emphasized. The main points could have been reinforced on the chalkboard or by the use of some other media, e.g., overhead projector, supplementary materials, to better helped those students who are visual rather than auditory learners. Although Respondent was rated acceptable in assessment techniques, she still did not collect the homework after asking the students how many had it. Only five students had the homework and there was no reinforcement for them. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because some students monopolized the discussion while others never participated and were completely off task. No encouragement was given to those students who did not participate. However, due to a technical error in checking the boxes on the observation form, Respondent should have been given credit for satisfactory teacher-student relationships. This technical error would not remove Respondent from prescription. Rather than writing a new prescription for Respondent, Mrs. Nelson reviewed and discussed the prescription of November 24, 1982, with her. She did this because she felt as though that that prescription was a very good one and it had not been completed by Respondent. On February 23, 1983, a conference-for-the record was held with Respondent to discuss the problems that Respondent had been having, the help that had been given to her, the status of the remediation efforts, and to clarify decisions related to employment recommendations. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class on March 2, 1983, by Dr. Augenstein and by an outside administrator, Roger Frese. Both administrators rated Respondent unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Respondent had difficulty in presenting the subject matter in a sequenced manner. While the lesson plan indicated that the students would study components of the short story, with the exception of merely mentioning the names of the components, the students jumped right into paragraph writing dealing with characterization without any development of the concept of characterization and without instruction on how to write. The written products of the students indicated confusion and misunderstanding. When the students asked questions, Respondent had an opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding: however, she failed to respond to their questions. When the students read their papers aloud, Respondent failed to indicate whether they were correct. Because Respondent did not ask questions and did not respond to the questions asked by the students; and because of the many wrong answers given and accepted by Respondent; there was no way to determine that Respondent did in fact have a grasp of the topic. There was no closure to the assignment. Respondent assigned a homework activity which was not an extension of the day's assignment. It was a new assignment given without prior instruction. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies, Dr. Augenstein directed her to continue the prescribed activities of the November 24, 1982 prescription. By memorandum dated April 22, 1983, Dr. Augenstein recommended course work to help remediate deficiencies in Respondent's knowledge of subject matter. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom by assistant principal, Dr. Herman Mills, on May 24, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter. The sequencing of information was illogical and unclear. Dr. Mills found that Respondent had gaps in her education, as evidenced by her statements that Canada was a French-speaking country and Korea was a city. Respondent gave the students a handout with an error. "More bigger" was used on the handout, and Respondent failed to indicate to the class that a comma was missing. This confused the students in finding a dissimilar word in a given series. Respondent gave another wrong answer because she did not recognize the dissimilar word in a series of words. During the 1982-83 school year, administrators occasionally went to Respondent's classroom so that their presence would help Respondent get the class under control. Respondent's yearly evaluation indicated that she had not remediated deficiencies in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction, and Dr. Augenstein recommended a return to annual contract, i.e., loss of tenure. That recommendation, however, was not implemented. In September, 1983, Dr. Augenstein assigned Dr. Mills the task of determining the degree of Respondent's compliance with her previous prescription. At his first meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills discovered that she had had none of the prescriptive activities signed off. At a second meeting with Respondent, Dr. Mills verified that Respondent completed a TEC course in techniques of instruction. On September 27, 1983, Dr. Mills directed Respondent to obtain sign-offs on her prescription by September 30, 1983. When he met with her on October 5, 1983, he discovered that the only item signed off was the activity of meeting with Mr. Fontana, assistant principal, on classroom management. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade Level II class by Dr. Augenstein on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because the lesson stated in the plan was not feasible. Respondent had not anticipated how long the various tasks would take, and since this was the same teaching assignment as the previous year, she should have had an idea of the reasonable time for the assignment. She listed a homework assignment that could not be done because the set of books involved was a classroom set and were not books that were sent home with the students. A large number of students did not have their books in class; thus indicating to the observer that they had not been prepared for the work to be assigned. In order to address Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she had difficulty demonstrating the difference between homonyms, homographs, and homophones. She also assumed that the seventh grade students were knowledgeable of the parts of speech. This would not have been appropriate so early in the year for seventh grade students. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, recommending intensive study of subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was still not emphasizing important points with the use of media, e.g., chalkboard. Student contributions ended in confusion rather than clarification since Respondent allowed the students to call out homonyms rather than using the homonyms in a correct sentence. To help remediate Respondent's deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the original prescription of November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because there were insufficient student papers in the students' folders and insufficient grades in the grade book to enable an administrator to make a judgment as to whether the students were making adequate progress. The criterion calls for a variety of assessment techniques, and yet, the only graded tests in Respondent's grade book were four spelling tests. The student folders contained no graded samples of homework or graded compositions. The day's homework was not called for. When Dr. Augenstein asked to see the homework, only six students turned in papers. In order to remediate Respondent's deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to enroll in a TEC course in assessment techniques. She was directed not to write in her lesson plans that the students should "go over the. ," but that she should be more specific on how she plans to assess the work. She was directed to provide a variety of assessments to include both written and oral work. Respondent was next formally observed in her reading lab by Dr. Mills on November 16, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her methodology was inappropriate for a reading lab. The purpose of a reading lab is to give the students individualized work based upon their reading levels. The students should have been diagnostically placed into three groups based upon reading levels however, they were being taught as one group and had been so taught for four days. Respondent's instructions to the class were vague and unclear. Respondent did not indicate to the class what the correct responses were, but rather, she seemed to be striving for consensus among the students. The students had little idea of what a topic sentence was, and Respondent did not give them any background. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Mills arranged for carrels to be placed in Respondent's classroom. He also had Mrs. Hoffman, a teacher on special assignment in reading, work with Respondent in setting up the reading lab. He further directed Respondent to immediately divide the 20 students into three reading groups according to the diagnostic testing and to provide the necessary materials for individualized work according to their reading levels. He assigned exercise in the TADS prescription manual. A parental complaint was lodged against Respondent for using profanity in the classroom on November 30, 1983. An investigation into the matter revealed that a student had used profanity and that Respondent, in chastising him, repeated the profanity a number of times. Respondent was advised against the use of profanity in the classroom and to use standard referral procedures in handling such matters. A conference-for-the-record was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss Respondent's performance to date. Respondent was informed that failure to remediate and improve her performance could have an adverse impact upon her employment status. On February 14, 1984, Respondent was formally observed in her ninth grade reading class by Dr. Augenstein. She was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she continued to demonstrate the same kinds of problems she had previously demonstrated. There was no evidence that Respondent was applying the previous help from the TADS manual. No objective was given in the lesson plan. Although a homework assignment was listed in the previous day's lesson plan, none was collected. The homework assignment for this day, as listed in the plan, was never assigned. Respondent was still putting in her plan that students should "Go over today's lesson." The terminology "go over" was still being used despite an earlier prescription indicating that the term was vague. Respondent was confusing assessment activity with programmed instruction. She demonstrated a lack of understanding of programmed instruction. To remediate Respondent's deficiencies in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein directed Respondent to enroll in a TEC course in preparation and planning as prescribed on October 19, 1983. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because Respondent gave no feedback to the students as to the correct answers. She did not orient the students to what they were doing. When they asked questions, she was very vague in answering. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the memorandum of April 22, 1983, which suggested the need for intensive study of the subject matter. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she presented no lesson and did not carry out a question-answer sequence as indicated in her lesson plans. The students spent the entire period doing an activity which was not introduced to them and was not monitored by the teacher. There was no follow-up and the students did not get feedback as to whether the work was correct. The students who finished early sat with nothing to do. Respondent spent the period grading papers and provided assistance to a few students who asked for it. To aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein referred Respondent to the pages in the TADS prescription manual which had been prescribed on November 24, 1982. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book contained no grades for the last four weeks of the first semester. Minimally, a teacher should have two grades per week. There was no evidence of graded homework or formal writing instruction in the grade book or the student folders. Some of the students had no papers in their folders for several months. Most of the papers that were in the folders were simply ditto sheets, quick, objective, short answer papers. The "essay" portion of the ninth grade final examination for the first semester was a multiple choice test rather than an essay test, contrary to the guidelines for final examinations in the faculty handbook and School Board Rule. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Dr. Augenstein referred her to the prescription of October 19, 1983. Respondent was next formally observed in her seventh grade class on March 6, 1984, by Dr. Augenstein and Zelda Glazer, supervisor of language arts. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction; and assessment techniques. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because in a lesson dealing with parts of speech,. she accepted incorrect answers from students and even put some of them on the board. She incorrectly identified a number of words as adjectives when they were actually adverbs; verbs, and nouns. When the students gave wrong answers, Respondent did not correct them. Respondent relied on rote definitions for the parts of speech. These were difficult for low level students to understand. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was directed to review with the language arts supervisor or the department chairperson the identifying signals for adjectives and nouns, so that rote definitions would not be the exclusive explanations made to the students. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because there was no sequence for the lesson. Respondent's lesson lacked motivation and closure. No background was given, and no re-teaching was done of areas where the students lacked knowledge. Respondent did not recognize and anticipate difficulties in the lesson. She did not answer the student's questions and did not use students' wrong answers as a teaching experience. There was no attempt to explain why wrong answers were wrong, but rather, they were simply accepted, thus confirming the student's opinions that they had given correct responses. In order to aid Respondent in remediating her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Respondent was directed to review with the department chairperson or a school administrator the sequencing of a lesson and to write a lesson which was carefully sequenced. The lesson should include the requisite components, i.e., review, participation in a drill or repetition, and application of the skills learned. Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because the work in the students' folders did not reflect a variety of formats. The papers were merely simple drills or exercises. There were no compositions and no opportunities for applying the skills which were taught. By this time of year, Respondent should have had approximately 15 to 20 compositions in each student's folder. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in assessment techniques, Respondent was directed to develop a unit test using writing production as one element of the test. A conference-for-the-record was held on March 6, 1984. Respondent's assessments and prescriptions were reviewed. The help afforded to Respondent was also discussed. Dr. Augenstein indicated that she would be initiating the procedure for dismissal for cause. In March, 1984, shortly after the conference for the record, Respondent began approximately one year's maternity leave. Respondent's yearly evaluation for 1983-84 indicated that Respondent ended the year on prescription for deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques, and that Dr. Augenstein had recommended her for dismissal. The actual evaluation form (Petitioner's Exhibit 20) contains a typographical error in that the "X's" are reversed. The unacceptable categories are marked acceptable and vice versa. Respondent returned to Highland Oaks on April 15, 1985. She was given special help to acclimate her after her year's leave. Although Dr. Augenstein had never done so before; she purchased the services of the substitute teacher who had replaced Respondent during her leave in order that Respondent could have the minimum of one full week when she returned to prepare for her classes and so that the substitute could work with her on an as needed basis. Respondent was to observe the classes during that week, go over the student's progress, and plan in depth for the rest of the school year. Dr. Mills assisted in attempting to make a smooth transition between the substitute and Respondent. Respondent was next formally observed in the classroom on May 2, 1985, by Dr. Augenstein. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. Since she had recently returned from leave, Dr. Augenstein did not rate her in assessment techniques. The class observed was an eighth grade Level IV class, the precursor to high school honors English. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in knowledge of subject matter because she did not demonstrate that she had knowledge of research projects and library research skills. The students were completely confused and frustrated by Respondent's teaching. They were trying to get clarification from Respondent but were not able to do so. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein recommended that she observe other Level IV English classes and that she do a research project herself so that she would learn enough about it in order to teach it. Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she was not meeting the needs of advanced learners. She was not using inductive and critical thinking approaches. She frustrated them by putting off their questions and giving conflicting and misleading information when she tried to answer questions. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, Dr. Augenstein directed her to design and present a lesson using strategies for inductive and critical thinking. She was to include higher order questioning skills, pre-writing strategies, and techniques for promoting student involvement. Dr. Augenstein indicated that Charles Houghton, North Area project manager for secondary language arts, would assist and critique demonstration lessons. Mr. Houghton came to Highland Oaks to assist Respondent on Wednesday, May 15, 1985. He discovered that Respondent lacked an understanding of research. Mr. Houghton indicated that he would return on Friday, May 17, 1985, in order to give assistance to Respondent. He would gather materials for her, would go over them with her during her planning period, and would stay with her through the classroom period to see how she did. When he came back on the 17th, he discovered that Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. Respondent was next observed in her English class by Dr. Mills on May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning; classroom management, and techniques of instruction. Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning and techniques of instruction because although lesson plans had been made, they were not being followed. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because there was no lesson being presented. Respondent shouted at the students, but they continued to remain off task. The student behavior was almost chaotic. In an effort to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies, Dr. Mills met with Respondent and indicated that it was imperative that she follow through on the prescription Dr. Augenstein had given her. She was given further prescriptive activities which were similar to those she had been given before. Respondent was next formally observed in her eighth grade class on June 6, 1985, by Mrs. Nelson and Mrs. Glazer. Respondent was rated unaccepted in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Mrs. Nelson did not see much of an improvement over her prior observation done in 1982. Respondent was teaching a lesson in similes and metaphors in the poem, "Danny Deever" by Rudyard Kipling. "Danny Deever" is a ballad written in cockney dialect about the public hanging of a solider in the British army. The poem contains no similes or metaphors. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in preparation and planning because the plan was not followed. The poem which had been indicated as a homework assignment was the one used for class discussion and was an inappropriate choice for simile and metaphor discussion. Respondent could not provide an example of a metaphor when asked by a student, thereby indicating that she did not have knowledge of what a metaphor was. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in preparation and planning, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she made many errors in the interpretation of "Danny Deever." She referred to the dialect of the poem as United States southern dialect and misinterpreted the meanings of dialectical words, resulting in completely misinterpreted lines. Respondent did not contemporize the poems to the children's lives in order to help them better understand the poem. In order to help Respondent overcome her deficiencies in knowledge of subject matter, she was referred back to the previous prescription of May 2, 1985. In addition, she was directed to review her lessons carefully in order to be prepared for student questions and to be able to provide appropriate examples. Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because she took ten minutes to take the roll. Even after roll call, there was considerable socializing among the students. Quite a few students were late to class, but they were not questioned as to why they were late. With a seating chart, Respondent would have only needed two minutes to take attendance. The average teacher learns who her students are in less than a week, and Respondent had had the students since April 15, 1985. No attempts were made to prevent off task behavior. Inappropriate student behavior was mildly noted but was not effectively handled with firmness or suitable consequences. Respondent was absent. He left the materials for her with an open ended invitation that if she needed further assistance, to let him know. Respondent did not request further help. In order to help Respondent remediate her classroom management, she was referred to the previous prescription of May 28, 1985. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in techniques of instruction because the sequence of the lesson was erratic or haphazard. The students were asked to read the poem aloud, and they had great difficulty with the dialect. Therefore, the poem was not a positive experience for them. Respondent provided no background information in order to set the tone for the study of "Danny Deever." She gave no background on the poet or on the form of the poem. Correct and incorrect responses were accepted in exactly the same fashion without comment or question. Respondent misinterpreted the meanings of the dialectical words, thereby resulting in irrelevant interpretation of the poem. The students never came to realize that the poem was about a hanging. All of the topics which should have appropriately been covered in the poem were ignored. Respondent failed to anticipate the confusion or misunderstanding in the class. Therefore, no attempt was made to clarify the lack of student understanding or appreciation. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in techniques of instruction, she was referred to the two previous prescriptions, since they had never been completed nor had her problems been remediated. Respondent was rated unsatisfactory in teacher-student relationships because student responses were ignored; neither praised nor questioned. Non-participants were not called upon or encouraged to participate. There was a quiet disrespect in the class. In order to help Respondent remediate her deficiencies in teacher-student relationships, she was referred to specific exercise in the TADS prescription manual dealing with feedback, interacting with students, and recognizing correct and incorrect responses. Petitioner's yearly evaluation for the 1984-85 school year indicated that Respondent remained deficient in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, teacher-student relationships, and that the principal recommended dismissal for cause. A conference-for-the-record was held on May 30, 1985, to discuss Respondent's end-of-the-year evaluation and the principal's recommendation for dismissal. Respondent's final examinations for June, 1985, indicate that Respondent still lacked an understanding of what constitutes an objective examination. In addition to the formal observations, Respondent was observed informally numerous times. These informal observations substantiated those deficiencies found on the formal observations. Her room was often noisy and Respondent could be heard yelling in an attempt to try to gain control of the class. The students were often out of their seats until an administrator walked in. Her class was noisy regardless of the time of the day or the portion of the period. Respondent was generally seated at her desk with students congregated around her. Rarely was instruction going on and rarely were students on task. When seen in the library, the class was fooling around and little was being accomplished. It is the consensus of opinion of those administrators who observed Respondent and/or those who reviewed her records, that Respondent repeatedly failed to communicate with and relate to the students in her class to such an extent that they were deprived of a minimum educational experience. These administrators also were of the opinion that Respondent lacks adequate command of her area of specialization, i.e., English language arts, in that she lacks the minimum skills and competencies in both content and methodology to teach English language arts. Dr. Mills believes that Respondent should only teach basic skills English classes, if she teaches at all. Unfortunately, the evidence compels the same conclusion. At least 90% of Respondent's prescription for remediation was not met. Given the time, effort, and assistance expended on Respondent's behalf, she did not make the minimum effort necessary to overcome her deficiencies. She lacked basic knowledge which could have been obtained by pursuing the course work that was prescribed. No matter who the observer was or what the specific teaching assignment was; Respondent failed to demonstrate an acceptable level of teaching. Respondent's certification should have enabled her to teach any of the related components within the field of English language arts, including different ability levels. Respondent demonstrated her lack of knowledge of the subject area during the hearing when she was unable to answer questions that a junior high school teacher should be able to answer, such as the signals which help identify a noun and the noun, verb, adverb and adjective forms of common words. Effective September 4; 1985; Respondent was suspended from her employment with Petitioner, and Petitioner instituted proceedings to dismiss Respondent from employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Dade County enter a Final Order sustaining the suspension of Respondent Laverne Reaves, and dismissing Respondent, Laverne Reaves, as a teacher in the Dade County Public Schools. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1986; in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Madelyn P. Schere, Esquire Suite 301 1450 N. E. Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Curtis L. Jones, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 105182 Miami, Florida 33101 Dr. Leonard Britton Superintendent of Schools Dade County Public Schools Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2); Florida Statutes; on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact of Petitioner Proposed findings of fact 1-3 and 5-151 are adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1-3 and 5-151. Proposed finding of fact 4 is rejected as not supported by the evidence and argumentative. Ruling on Proposed Findings of Fact of Respondent Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1. Proposed finding of fact 2 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed finding of fact 7 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 8 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 9 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 14 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 15 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 16 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8. Proposed finding of fact 20 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 12. Proposed finding of fact 22 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 24. Proposed finding of fact 26 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 57. Proposed finding of fact 31 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 112. Proposed finding of fact 32 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 25 and 82. Proposed finding of fact 35 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 102 and 105. Proposed finding of fact 44 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 45 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Facts 69 and 85. Proposed finding of fact 46 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 148. Proposed finding of fact 47 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 111. Proposed finding of fact 52 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 72. 20. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 41, 48, 49, 50, 53, and 57 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 17, 18, 23; 25, 29, and 51 are rejected as not supported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 24, 27; and 54 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence and as being argumentative. 23. Proposed findings of fact 28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 55, and 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 38 is rejected as unnecessary and argumentative. Proposed finding of fact 42 is rejected as being misleading and incomplete and therefore not supported by the competent, substantial evidence.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked or disciplined on grounds that she is incompetent to teach or to perform her duties as an employee of the public school system and is unable to effectively meet her responsibili- ties as a classroom instructor, and that she intentionally ex- posed her students to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto the Respondent held Teaching Certificate Number 182937, issued by the Department of Education for the State of Florida. This certificate covers the areas of English and administrative supervision. The Respondent was first employed by the Dade County School Board in 1966. She taught elementary levels first through fourth grades at Shadowlawn and Allapattah Elementary Schools. In 1971, the Respondent transferred to Shenandoah Junior High School, where she taught seventh through ninth grade English until she transferred to Highland Oaks Junior High in 1982. (RE 1) Prior to the Respondent's transfer to Highland Oaks Junior High School she received observations and evaluations which rated her performance in the 3.6 to 4.5 range. The Respondent testified that she received excellent to superior ratings on her evaluation sheets. The school system however considers this to be the ratings of an acceptable or satisfactory teacher. Over 4.6 would be considered excellent or superior. (T538, 623) For the 1982-83 school year through the 1984-85 school year (with the exception of a maternity leave of absence), the Respondent has been employed with the Dade County School Board and assigned to Highland Oaks Junior High School as an English language arts teacher. (T536) The Respondent started the 1982-83 school year late due to a back injury. (T223) Within a week the school began receiving complaints from parents dissatisfied with the Respondent. Parents complained that their children who were Level III students (average - above average ability) were being taught at Level II (below average ability). One of the Respondent's Level III classes through no fault of the Respondent's had been mislabeled as a Level II class. This was corrected immediately. The parents from her other Level III classes which were not mislabeled also complained. The Respondent testified that the dissatisfaction and complaints of the parents all stemmed from the mislabeling of her one class. (T221-223, 548) On October 8, 1982, Assistant Principal Nelson had an informal conference with the Respondent following phone calls and complaints from parents. (T182-183) Mrs. Nelson recommended that the Respondent not eat in the classroom and not use the T.V. for watching soap operas. (SE24F) Mrs. Nelson discussed the need for more rigorous assignments for the Level III students. She asked another teacher, Mrs. Susan Ruskin, who was also the department chairman for language arts, to explain the difference between Level II and Level III students to the Respondent. Mrs. Nelson informed the Respondent that she needed to keep her lesson plans up-to-date. She also needed to specify different lesson objectives for the Level II students as opposed to the Level III students. Mrs. Nelson cautioned the Respondent to watch her language and word choice when speaking to her students. She encouraged the Respondent to call the students' parents when a problem arose. (SE24F) On October 12, 1982, Mrs. Ruskin met with the Respondent to assist her in differentiating between Level II and Level III students. She also discussed discipline, homework, and other curriculum problems with the Respondent. Mrs. Ruskin told the Respondent that she was available if the Respondent needed assistance. The Respondent never asked Mrs. Ruskin for help. (T362, 366-367, SE24) On October 13, 1982, the Respondent's seventh grade Level III English class was formally observed by Assistant Principal Nelson. Mrs. Nelson rated the Respondent unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning and techniques of in- struction. Mrs. Nelson rated the Respondent unacceptable in preparation and planning because the Respondent did not list more rigorous lesson objectives for the Level III students. The Respondent's lesson objectives were too general and her homework assignments vague. (SE24-B) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she did not adapt the materials to the interest and ability of each student. The Respondent's questioning of her students was not done in depth and lacked important follow-up questions. Her lesson lacked closure: there was no overview or conclusion at the end of the class period. The Respondent's homework assignments did not have any value and the Respondent failed to recognize students for having done or not done their homework. (T188-190) Although Mrs. Nelson rated the Respondent acceptable in the area of classroom management, she was concerned that the Respondent wasted twenty (20) minutes getting the class settled down and on task. Mrs. Nelson recommended that the Respondent establish and enforce classroom rules. (T195) On November 9, 1982, Dr. Mildred B. Augenstein, the principal of Highland Oaks Junior High School did a formal observation of the Respondent. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. (SEI) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she neither presented her lesson knowledgeably nor used the appropriate teaching methodology. When asked for the definition of science fiction the Respondent answered incorrectly that it was fiction about science. In giving a spelling test, the Respondent merely read the words off instead of following the accepted and simple procedure of pronouncing the word, using the word in context, and then repeating the word. (T20-23) Dr. Augenstein rated the Respondent unacceptable in classroom management because the class was not in control. Students spoke up at-will without raising their hands for acknowledgment. The class was late in beginning because the children would not settle down. The Respondent appeared unable to keep her students focused on the learning process. Children who were trying to learn were distracted by the unruly children. (T28-30) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the category of techniques of instruction because the Respondent's instructions to the students were unclear. When the students asked questions for clarification, the Respondent could not adequately answer. Dr. Augenstein felt that the Respondent was deficient in the sequence of her lessons. There was no background, no purpose and no follow through. Instead of facilitating a learning experience the Respondent was merely assigning activities. (T3O-40) Dr. Augenstein used the Teacher Assessment Development System (TADS), the approved assessment instrument (jointly developed by the school system administration and the teachers union and approved by the school board and the state) to assess the Respondent. The TADS is meant to act as a support system to help teachers overcome their deficiencies. A part of the system is the TADS prescription manual. This is a large manual which contains various self- assessment activities and learning materials keyed to various problem areas. (T20-26) On November 24, 1982, Dr. Augenstein presented a prescription to the Respondent to address the deficiencies noted at the observations on October 13, 1982 and November 9, 1982. To remediate weaknesses observed by Mrs. Nelson in preparation and planning, Dr. Augenstein made specific recommendations. These included turning in lesson plans every Friday to Mrs. Nelson. They were to be done separately for the Level II and Level III classes. They were to include the days' objectives, activities, assessment procedures, homework assignments, and the materials and media to be utilized. Dr. Augenstein recommended Mrs. Ruski (she language arts department head) and Mrs. Earle (the librarian) as good source people. (SE1-B) To remediate weaknesses observed in the Respondent's knowledge of subject matter, Dr. Augenstein assigned specific pages and exercises in the TADS prescription manual to be completed by December 8, 1982. The Respondent was also instructed to contact the Teacher Education Center (TEC) and enroll in course offerings of language arts by December 15, 1982. Dr. Augenstein suggested that the Respondent visit other language arts classes prior to December 15, 1982. To remediate the Respondent's weakness in classroom management, Dr. Augenstein recommended that the Respondent establish class rules and enforce them. The Respondent was directed to investigate a course on assertive discipline or teacher effectiveness training and to enroll in a TEC course in classroom management by March of 1983. The Respondent was also directed to review the faculty handbook which contained the rules and regulations of the school. She was directed to work with Assistant Principal Fontana to set up her classroom rules. (SEI, T32-36) To remediate the Respondent's deficiencies in techniques of instruction Dr. Augenstein prescribed resources such as the TADS manual exercises on questioning students, verbal interaction, effective teaching strategies, and instruction sequence. These were to be completed by January 15, 1983. Dr. Augenstein felt the Respondent needed to learn how to ask questions which lead the students into more critical thinking. The Respondent was to demonstrate at least one new teaching approach by January 15, 1983. (SEI) On November 29, 1982, a group of nineteen (19) parents met with Dr. Augenstein to lodge complaints against the Respondent. The parents requested that their children be assigned to another teacher for language arts instruction. The parents complained that the Respondent was not adequately prepared to teach, that she did not address separately and adequately the needs of Level II and Level III students, that she used "atrocious" grammar and poor pronunciation, and that she taught at a level below her students' abilities. The parents were angry that at the end of November their children were still in Chapter I of their textbook. They complained that work assignments were without purpose and often meaningless. Furthermore, the parents complained that the Respondent used inappropriate language in the classroom. The Respondent had called a child "a stupid ignorant person, yelled "shut-up" and had referred to the mother of one of her students as a "whore." The Respondent asked one student (in response to a request for a bathroom pass) whether she was "going to smoke or take quaaludes." The parents were upset that their children were subject to the Respondent's verbal abuse. They also complained that the Respondent had retaliated against students whose parents had made complaints by threatening and ridiculing the students by lowering student conduct grades. (SE2, T50-55) The parents reported a change in their children's atti- tude toward learning and school. Their children hated school and did not want to attend. The parents reported that the Respondent would indiscriminately punish an entire class for the misbehavior of various individuals. The Respondent had handed out detentions to two whole classes and then did not show up herself to supervise the students when they reported for the detention. (SE2-A) The parents reported that the Respondent had watched the soap opera "The Young and the Restless" on the educational T.V. in her classroom. They complained that at an open house for parents the Respondent was late and then allowed her own child to disrupt the program. The Respondent did not abide by school procedures requiring notice to parents of their child's unsatisfactory progress before giving a students an "F" in conduct. One parent related that the Respondent initially would not provide homework assignments for a sick child and then finally, after repeated requests, provided an inadequate and incomplete assignment. (SE2-B) The Respondent's response to the parents' comments and concerns was that the parents and students had "fabricated stories" and told "terrible lies" about her. She testified that the disciplinary problems in her class were because the students conspired against her to prevent her from teaching. She said that the students continually disrupted class and prevented her from teaching. The Respondent stated that she was shocked by the profanity that the students used among themselves. The Respondent denied that she had ever "blasphemed" a child. (SE2-E, T550-553) On November 23, 1982, one parent wrote a letter to Dr. Augenstein complaining of the Respondent's unjust treatment of her daughter, one of the Respondent's students. The parent complained that the Respondent punished all the students for the misbehavior of a few, She also complained of the Respondent's word choice, quoting the Respondent as saying in class,, "I'm not taking any crap from you kids." Her daughter had been so upset by the Respondent's treatment that she became physically ill with stomach cramps. When she requested a bathroom pass the Respondent "gave her a very hard time in front of the whole class." After the student insisted that it was an emergency, the Respondent looked at her watch and told her that she had sixty (60) second to go to the bathroom and was being timed. The parent was very upset at the emotional distress her daughter was suffering at the hands of the Respondent. (T2-1) Two other parents wrote the School on November 23, 1982, complaining that the Respondent's treatment of their particular children, and the students as a whole, was abusive. One parent emphasized that he did not want his child "humiliated or mistreated" by the Respondent. Both parents requested that their children be moved out of the Respondent's classroom. (SE2-J, 2-K) After the November 23, 1982, meeting with parents, Dr. Augenstein continued to receive complaints from other parents. On December 7, 1982, several parents met with Mr. Marvin Weiner, Superintendent of the North Area of Dade County Schools, Mr. Roger Frese, Director, and Principal Augenstein, and presented a petition signed by parents of the Respondent's students. They also presented more letters of complaint against the Respondent. (SE3) On December 13, 1982, Dr. Augenstein wrote the Respon- dent a letter to notify her that she had failed to comply with the prescription of November 24, 1982. The Respondent had failed to turn in lesson Plans as directed and the one plan she did turn in did not differentiate between Level II and Level III students. (SE4) On December 16, 1982, another parent wrote to Dr. Augenstein complaining of her son's treatment in the Respondent's classroom. Her son had been involved in an altercation with another student which developed into a fist fight. The Respondent ignored the incident and refused to separate the two boys stating, "let them both hang themselves back there." The parent sent a note to the Respondent requesting a seat change for her child. The Respondent read the note and did not respond to the parent. The Respondent, after some sarcastic words with the boy, refused to change his seat. The parent then received a poor progress report on her son, which the parent felt was either unjustified or due to her son's seat in the back of a noisy and unruly classroom. The parent felt that her son was not physically safe and secure in the Respondent's classroom. (SES-C) On January 6, 1983, another parent wrote complaining of a distressing phone call with the Respondent. The Respondent had told her that her son never came to class on time, never did his homework, and never passed any tests. The parent did not believe the Respondent since the parent closely monitored her child's homework. The parent went on to relate that she had given her son a note for all of his teachers indicating that he would be absent on a Friday and requesting assignments. The Respondent was the only teacher who did not provide any assignments. The letter written to Dr. Augenstein asked why if her son was doing absolutely nothing had she not received any sort of home progress report. (SE6) Teachers are required by the School Board to send notice to the parents any time their child is doing below average work or exhibiting below average behavior efforts. (T59) On January 6, 1983, the Respondent was again formally observed by Dr. Augenstien. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, assessment techniques and teacher-student relationships. (SE7A, T60-67) Dr. Augenstein felt the Respondent's lesson plans were not being used as an important resource for the structure of her class. The plans were done but not followed. The Respondent also displayed an inadequate grasp of her subject matter language arts. She used the grammatically incorrect sentence, "what hour you went to bed last night." Furthermore, the Respondent provided unclear and inadequate instruction when giving a test on homonyms. Her lesson plans lacked cohesiveness and sequential meaning. There was little if any connection between lessons, leaving the students unable to grasp the overall meaning of what was being studied. (T6O-65) Although the January 6, 1983 observation was done near the end of the first semester, there was no evidence of a structured composition program. The county language arts directives require teachers to assign compositions, collect-the assignment, constructively critique it and then reassign it. This is done to benefit students in developing their writing skills. (T66-68) The atmosphere of the Respondent's classroom was uncomfortable and hostile. The teacher and student interchanges were very cold. (T67) No prescription was given following the January 6, 1983 observation due to the fact that the Respondent had not completed the November 24, 1982 prescription. The Respondent was instructed to continue with the old prescription. (T68) On January 11, 1983, Dr. Augenstein gave the Respondent a listing of courses offered by the Teacher Education Center (TEC) to remediate unacceptable areas noted on November 24, 1982 and January 6, 1983. (SE8) On January 19, 1983, another parent wrote Dr. Augenstein complaining that the Respondent had assigned a book report which was inappropriate for seventh graders. Dr. Augenstein agreed that the book report was too elementary for junior high school, particularly the Level III children. (T70) On February 8, 1983, Dr. Augenstein formally observed the Respondent. Since the January 6, 1983 observation, the Respondent had been reassigned lower performance students. This was done with the hopes that she would be able to handle her students more successfully. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter, classroom management and techniques of instruction. (SEIO, T71) The Respondent mispronounced "architecture" and "denouncement" words that were critical to her lesson. The students were quiet and well behaved as long as Dr. Augenstein was in the room. When the Principal was in the adjoining room, the class became extremely loud. The teacher next door indicated that the Respondent's class was always very loud. The Respondent's lesson lacked closure; rather, it ended when the bell rang. Finally, the Respondent did not adequately answer her students' questions. (T70-73) Although the Respondent had been switched to all Level II students, she exhibited the same problems she had with her other classes. (T74) On February 17, 1983, Assistant Principal Nelson conducted a formal observation of the Respondent's seventh grade, Level II class. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in the areas of classroom management, techniques of instruction and teacher-student relationships. The Respondent's students were very noisy and the Respondent had great difficulty getting them settled. There was an undercurrent of noise throughout the whole class period. There was no focal point to the Respondent's lesson. The lesson should have been reinforced with supportive material such as writing on the chalkboard or an overhead projector to assist the students who were visual rather than auditory learners. Some of the Respondent's students were totally uninvolved with the lesson. A few students monopolized the discussion. The Respondent did not attempt to involve disinterested students. She gave no encouragement to the non- participants. The Respondent had assigned homework and only five students had done it and they received no reinforcement for their effort. The Respondent collected their work but did not grade it or place it in the students' folders. (SE39, T195-198) Assistant Principal Nelson did not assign a new prescription to the Respondent even though the time line on the November 24, 1982 prescription had run out. Instead, she reviewed the areas of the prescription that were incomplete and encouraged the Respondent to complete them, Mrs. Nelson felt that the November 24, 1982 prescription was a good one. (T200) On February 23, 1983, a conference with the Respondent, Dr. Augenstein, Assistant Principal Nelson, and Mrs. Yvonne Perez, a union representative, was held to discuss the status of remediation of observed performance deficiencies and to discuss reemployment of the Respondent. Principal Augenstein stated that she would recommend consideration of a return to annual contract status for the 1983-84 school year. (SE11) On March 2, 1983, the Respondent's seventh grade Level II class was again formally observed by Dr. Augenstein and Mr. Roger Frese, an outside administrator. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter and techniques of instruction. The Respondent gave her students inadequate instruction. She asked them to read a short story and then write a paragraph describing a character in the story. There was no discussion or instruction on method of character development that could be used to develop the paragraph. Most of the children were unable to complete the assignment. When the children read their paragraphs, many of which were merely a synopsis of the story rather than the assignment, the Respon- dent did not differentiate between acceptable and unacceptable responses. (SE12, SE33A, T78) At the end of the class, the Respondent made a homework assignment but the bell rang before she could adequately discuss or explain the assignment. Again, she did not provide closure on the lesson for the day. (SE33) Throughout the class period the Respondent missed opportunities to clarify the assignment. She did not adequately respond to student's questions and did not ask questions herself. Observers were left in doubt as to whether she, herself, understood the topic and assignment. (T416) As a result of the March 2, 1983 observation, Dr. Augenstein instructed the Respondent to continue with the prescription of November 24, 1982. In addition, the Principal instructed the Respondent to enroll in classes during the summer of 1983 covering the subject matter of (a) critical study and analysis of literature, (b) advanced English grammar, and (c) English rhetoric. (T79, SE13) On May 24, 1983, the Respondent's seventh grade English class was formally observed by Assistant Principal Herman Mills. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter. The subject of the Respondent's lesson was analogy. The sequencing of information disbursed in the lesson was illogical and unclear. (SE26) The Respondent handed out an assignment with a series of words: greater, larger, more bigger, same. The children were to pick out the dissimilar word from the group. The Respondent failed to realize there is no such expression as "more bigger." She should have indicated that a comma between more and bigger was missing. In another series of words: accidental, design, intentional, on purpose, and planned the Respondent incorrectly chose "designed" as the dissimilar word. In other parts of the lesson, the Respondent told the class that Canada was a French speaking country and Korea was a city. (SE26, T258-259) Throughout the 1982-83 school year, administrators at Highland Oaks made it a point to drop into the Respondent's classroom so that their presence would help the Respondent get her class under control. (T267) The Respondent's 1982-83 annual evaluation indicated that Respondent had not remediated the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. It recommended that the Respondent lose her tenure status and be returned to annual contract. The recommendation was not implemented. (SE14, T81) In September 1983, Dr. Augenstein assigned Assistant Principal Mills the task of evaluating the Respondent's progress with the November 24, 1982 prescription. At his first meeting with the Respondent, Dr. Mills discovered that the Respondent had not completed any "required action" on the prescription. At their second meeting, Joan Kaspert of TEC verified that the Respondent had still not completed the "required action" on the prescription. She verified, however, that the Respondent had completed the course "Techniques of Instruction." On September 27, 1983, Dr. Mills instructed the Respondent to obtain "sign- off" on her prescription by September 30, 1983. On October 5, 1983, he determined that the only item signed-off on the pre- scription was the meeting with Assistant Principal Fontana on the subject of classroom management and the already noted course at the TEC. (SE27) On October 19, 1983, Dr. Augenstein again observed the Respondent's seventh grade, Level II English class. She rated the Respondent unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques. (SE15) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because her lesson was planned too sparsely. It did not fill the time allotted. Her homework assignment could not be done by the students because it required a spelling text, which was not a book sent home with the students. The Respondent scheduled a grammar exercise which the class could not do because a large number of the students did not bring the appropriate book to class. (5115) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of subject matter because she could not adequately explain or demonstrate the subject matter of her lesson, the difference between homonyms, and homographs, and homophones. (5115) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction in that she did not use the chalkboard to reinforce the differences between the spellings, pronunciations, and uses of the words studied. Students were called upon for examples which only furthered the confusion. The Respondent was unable to clarify or rectify the situation. (5115) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques. Her grade book showed grades for only five spelling tests since the beginning of the year. There were no graded compositions or homework assignments in the students' folders. The Respondent did not call for the day's homework assignment. When the Principal asked the class for their homework only six students could produce any and those produced did not seem to be the planned assignment. (SE15) In order to remediate the Respondent's deficiencies observed on October 19, 1983, Dr. Augenstein instructed the Respondent to continue with the November 24, 1982 prescription. She instructed the Respondent to pay special attention to teaching the required content and skills for grade seven literature study, library skills, and composition lessons. She also told the Respondent to enroll in the TEC component "Preparation and Planning." Dr. Augenstein assigned Assistant Principal Mills to monitor the adequacy of the Respondent's weekly plans and the overall accomplishment of course objectives revealed in the plans. She then assigned Ms. Zelda Glazer, Supervisor of Language Arts, to prescribe activities to remediate the Respondent's inadequate knowledge of her subject matter. (SE15) On November 16, 1983, the Respondent's reading lab was observed by Assistant Principal Mills. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction because her methodology was inappropriate for the reading lab. The purpose of the reading lab is to allow the students an opportunity to work at their own particular reading level. The Respondent was teaching the same lesson to the whole group, entirely missing the point of the reading lab. (SE28) Dr. Mills suggested that the Respondent immediately divide the class into three levels according to diagnostic testing that had been done. He instructed her to provide the requisite materials so that the students could work at their own pace. He also instructed the Respondent to utilize progress sheets so that the progress of the various students could be charted. Dr. Mills assigned a portion of the prescriptive manual to the Respondent and requested that she do all the activities suggested by the manual. Dr. Mills recommended various resource people to the Respondent. He assigned Mrs. Hoffman, a teacher on special assignment, to assist the Respondent in setting up her reading lab. Dr. Mills also arranged for carrels to be placed in the Respondent's reading lab. (SE28) On November 30, 1983, a parental complaint was made against the Respondent for the use of profanity in her classroom. After the matter was investigated it turned out that in chastising a student for profanity, the Respondent had repeated the word several times herself. The Respondent was instructed that repeating the profanity was ill-advised and served no purpose. She was instructed, in the future, to handle such situations using the standard referral procedures. (SE35) A conference for the record was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the Respondent's progress with her prescription. After reviewing the Respondent's deficiencies and prescription the Respondent was informed that failure to remediate and improve performance to an acceptable rating could have an adverse impact on her employment status. (SE16) On February 14, 1984, the Respondent's ninth grade reading class was formally observed by Dr. Augenstein. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction and assessment techniques. There was no evidence that the Respondent had applied the readings from the TADS manual that had been prescribed. Dr. Augenstein pointed out to the Respondent' that she had not enrolled in the TEC component on preparation and planning as required by her prescription. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because she did not understand the difference between assessment activity and programmed instruction. Her students were working on the ninth' grade preparation for taking the state assessment test given in the tenth grade. The Respondent did not orient the students to their assignments. She failed to answer the students' questions and did not review the students' work. The students never knew whether they had answered correctly or not. (T92) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because her students spent an entire period doing an activity which was never introduced, explained, monitored or concluded. The Respondent had no follow-up activities planned for the students who finished the assignment early. (T92-94) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in assessment techniques because her grade book showed no grades for the four weeks preceding the observation. The minimum amount of grades expected would be two per week. There was no evidence of graded homework in the students' folders. If the Respondent had become ill it would have been impossible for a substitute teacher to grade her students. (T94-95) In remediation, the Respondent was referred to a memorandum written April 22, 1983, in which Dr. Augenstein had suggested the need for intensive study of subject matter. She was also instructed to refer to the TADS prescription manual as prescribed on November 24, 1982. The principal also referred the Respondent to the prescription given on October 19, 1983. (SE13, 17) On March 6, 1984, the Respondent's language arts class was formally observed by Ms. Zelda Glazer and Dr. Augenstein. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of knowledge of subject matter and assessment techniques. (SE18) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in knowledge of subject matter because the Respondent was teaching a lesson dealing with parts of speech and she accepted incorrect answers from her students. She identified words as adjectives that were in fact adverbs, verbs and a noun. Furthermore, the Respondent's lesson was improperly sequenced. No background information was provided to the children who consequently did not understand what the Respondent was asking of them. In remediation the Respondent was directed to review with the department chairperson or school administrator the sequencing of a lesson. She was told to prepare a properly sequenced lesson, one which contained the necessary components: review, a drill, and a follow-up application of the skills learned. (T305-310) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of assessment techniques because her students' folders did not contain any compositions. At this time of the year the students should have done between fifteen to twenty (15 to 20) compositions. There was no evidence of any assignments which allowed the students to apply newly learned skills. In remediation the Respondent was instructed to develop a test on a present unit or topic being taught using writing production as one element of assessment. (SE18, T311-313) On March 6, 1984, another conference for the record was held to discuss the Respondent's remediation of performance deficiencies relative to future employment with Dade County Public Schools. After reviewing the Respondent's performance during the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years, Dr. Augenstein recommended that action be taken toward dismissal for cause. (SE19) In March 1984, the Respondent went on maternity leave. (T97) The 1983-84 year-end evaluation indicated that the Respondent's performance in knowledge of subject matter, techniques of instruction, and assessment techniques was unacceptable. The Respondent was recommended for dismissal. (SE2O, T98-99) The Respondent returned from her maternity leave to Highland Oaks in April 1985. The Respondent received special attention to help acclimate her after almost a year's leave. The Respondent was allowed a full week without the responsibility of a classroom so that she could observe the status of the classes she was assuming and meet with the teacher to discuss the students' progress. Although Dr. Augenstein had never done this before with any other teacher, she wanted to make sure that the Respondent would be adequately prepared. Dr. Mills was also assigned to help the Respondent make the transition. (T99-100, 266-269) On May 2, 1985, the Respondent's eighth grade Level II English class was formally observed by Dr. Augenstein. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of subject matter and techniques of instruction. (SE21) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of subject matter because she did not appear to grasp the difference between general and specific research sources. She was subsequently unable to clearly explain techniques of research and writing. The students were frustrated and unable to receive clarification from the Respondent. (SE21, T103) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of techniques of instruction because the Respondent was not addressing the needs of her students. Her students were advanced academic learners with a need for inductive and critical thinking approaches. (SE21, T104) In remediation, Dr. Augenstein recommended that the Respondent observe other Level IV English classes and that she do a research project herself. Respondent was also directed to design lessons using strategies for inductive and critical thinking. Dr. Augenstein assigned Mr. Charles Houghton, the North Area project manager for secondary language arts to assist and critique her demonstration lessons. (5521, T013-105) Because the Respondent had recently returned from maternity leave, her assessment techniques were not evaluated. (5521) On May 15, 1985, Mr. Houghton came to Highland Oaks to assist the Respondent. He observed her class working on a large research project. He discovered that the Respondent did not have a clear understanding of the use of bibliography cards, note cards, and research skills. Mr. Houghton told the Respondent that he would gather materials together to help her and return on Friday, May 17, 1985. Mr. Houghton returned on May 17, but the Respondent was absent that day. He left the materials with a note explaining the materials and inviting the Respondent to call him if she needed further assistance. The Respondent never called him. (T242-248) On May 28, 1985, the Respondent's English class was formally observed by assistant Principal Mills. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, classroom management, and techniques of instruction. (SE29) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because although she had prepared lesson plans she did not follow them. There was no lesson presentation and no reference to the lesson objective a review of composition skills. (SE29) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management because the class never settled down so that a lesson could be presented. (SE29) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because, among other things, there was no systematic method demonstrated for monitoring the students' performance on the learning objectives. The Respondent still did not use media to assist her presentation. There was no lesson presented. (SE29) For remediation, Dr. Mills met with the Respondent and urged her to follow Dr. Augenstein's prescription. He gave her more prescriptive activities which were similar to those already assigned. (SE29, T266-268) On June 6, 1085, the Respondent was observed by Assistant Principal Nelson and Ms. Glazer. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning, knowledge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. (5E25) Mrs. Nelson observed little improvement on the part of the Respondent. She did not seem to be benefiting from the prescription and TADS system. (T210) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in preparation and planning because she did not follow her lesson plan. The poem which had been assigned reading for that day was inappropriate for the lesson objective: metaphors and similes. The Respondent was rated unacceptable in the area of knowledge of subject matter because not only was she using a poem that did not contain metaphors and similes, but she could not even give an example of a metaphor, when asked by a student. The Respondent referred to the cockney dialect of the poem as a southern dialect. Consequently she interpreted the word again" as dialect for aging and completely misinterpreted a whole line of the poem. (5E25) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in classroom management in that it took her ten minutes to call the roll, after which there was still socializing among the students. Several students came in late and no questions were asked of them. (SE25) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in techniques of instruction because she accepted correct and incorrect responses without comments or suggestions. No background was given on Rudyard Kipling (the poet being studied) or on the form of the poem, the ballad. The Respondent ignored all the appropriate topics raised by the poem and, instead, interjected the terms "metaphor" and "simile "haphazardly. (5E25) The Respondent was rated unacceptable in teacher- student relationships because she ignored the students' responsibilities. She neither praised nor questioned them. Furthermore, she ignored the non-participating students. (SE25) In remediation, the Respondent was referred to the prescription of May 2, 1985 and May 28, 1985. She was also directed to carefully review her lessons so that she would he prepared for students' questions and be ready with appropriate examples. The Respondent was also directed to specific exercises in the TADS manual dealing with feedback, interaction with stu- dents, and recognizing correct and incorrect responses. (SE25, T328-330) The Respondent's 1984-85 annual evaluation rated her unacceptable in the areas of preparation and planning, knowl- edge of subject matter, classroom management, techniques of instruction, and teacher-student relationships. Dr. Augenstein noted that the Respondent's unacceptable performance--documented in previous years--continued since her return from leave. She again recommended that the Respondent be dismissed for cause. (SE22) On May 30, 1985, a conference for the record was held to discuss the Respondent's end-of-the-year evaluation. The principal again recommended that dismissal for cause be initiat- ed. (SE23B) The Respondent's final exams distributed in June 1985, indicated that she still had no understanding of what constituted an objective type of exam. (T27, SE30-32) Dr. Augenstein informally observed the Respondent's classroom many times over the years, as she did with all the teachers. Her informal observations substantiated the general deficiencies noted ire formal observations. Problems were continually observed in lesson planning, subject matter, methods and materials. (T106-107) Dr. Augenstein testified that she did not think that the Respondent put out even a minimal effort to overcome her deficiencies. (T108) All the administrators and educators who observed the Respondent's classroom agreed that the Respondent did not adequately grasp her area of specialization, the English language arts. All agreed that she lacked the minimum skills in both content and methodology of English language arts. (T16, 255, 304, 424, 461) Over the three year period, the Respondent was given various prescriptions to encourage and help her in remediation. The Respondent followed and completed only a tenth of the prescriptions given to her. (T170) Dr. Patrick Gray, Assistant Superintendent for the Dade County School Board's Office of Professional Standards, testified that--based on his educational background; his personal evaluation of the Respondent's file, his review of the evidence offered at the Respondent's school board hearing in the Division of Administrative Hearings' Case No. 85-3223; his review of the exhibits introduced on behalf of the Petitioner; his knowledge of the required teaching behaviors for teachers, including the state of the art and research; and the Florida teaching competencies which are expected of every Florida teacher--the Respondent's performance consistently failed to meet the standards of performance of the State of Florida. Dr. Gray recommended that the State permanently revoke the Respondent's teaching license. On September 4, 1985, the Respondent was suspended from her employment with the Dade County School Board. The School Board instituted proceedings to dismiss the Respondent from employment. On June 4, 1986, the School Board of Dade County entered its Final Order upholding the dismissal of the Respondent. (PE77)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's Teaching Certificate Number 182937 be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1144 RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-100. Adopted. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-8. Approved. 9. Approved, as modified to reflect that Respondent did not attend any of the TDS training sessions conducted by Dr. Gray. 10-13. Approved. 14. Approved, as modified to reflect that she was given the correct textbooks soon after parents complained about her performance. 15-21. Approved. 22. Approved as modified to reflect that a secretary made a transposing error on the form so that those areas where Respondent performed satisfactorily were marked unsatisfactory, and vice versa. 23-34. Approved. 35. Approved, but modified to reflect that, nevertheless, Respondent continued to perform below minimal standards and her remediation efforts were not effective. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig R. Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Laverne Elizabeth Reaves 1430 N.W. 90th Street Miami, Florida 33147
The Issue Respondent is charged in a five-count Administrative Complaint with violations of Subsection 231.2615(1)(c), Florida Statutes (gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude); Subsection 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes (personal conduct which seriously reduces her effectiveness as an employee of the school board); Subsection 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes (violation of the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida as prescribed by the State Board of Education); Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code (failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical safety), and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code (intentionally exposing a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has continuously held Florida Educator's Certificate 734274, covering the area of English, since 1996. It is valid through June 30, 2006. Respondent was first employed by the Holmes County School District in November 2000 and served as a language arts teacher for seventh and eighth grades at Poplar Springs School for the remainder of the 2000-2001 School Year. During the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent disciplined students in her seventh and eighth grade language arts (English) classes as more specifically described below. All instances of Respondent's discipline were employed in response to male students talking inappropriately or "cutting up" in her classroom so as to detract from the educational process. On one occasion, Respondent placed two pieces of masking tape over the mouth of student C.R. because he was talking in class. C.R. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period (approximately fifteen to twenty minutes). A science teacher saw C.R. in the hall, en route to his next class, and told him to take the tape off his mouth. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student J.F. when he laughed out loud after being warned not to continue talking in class. J.F. had the tape over his mouth for approximately twenty minutes, until the bell rang to go to his next class. Respondent directed student T.J. to place tape on his own mouth after he had talked in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or for approximately fifteen minutes. Respondent placed tape over the mouth of student W.W. because he was talking in class. W.W. had the tape over his mouth for the remainder of the class period, which ended approximately thirty minutes later. W.W. experienced difficulty breathing with the tape over his mouth, because he had a cold at the time and was having trouble breathing through his nose. Respondent placed masking tape over the mouth of student C.B. for talking in class. The tape remained on his mouth until the end of the class period, or approximately thirty minutes. All of the foregoing five students admitted that Respondent had warned them at least once not to continue talking, before she resorted to taping their mouths, but each of these students also was embarrassed as a result of sitting through the remainder of the class, surrounded by other students, while their mouths were taped. Also during the 2000-2001 School Year, Respondent required student C.R. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of three or four heavy dictionaries for approximately fifteen minutes. This method of punishment caused C.R. to experience physical distress in his back. Respondent also required student J.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of seven or eight heavy dictionaries, stacked to his chin, for approximately twenty minutes. This method of punishment caused J.C. to experience physical distress. His knees were buckling, and he was slumping against the wall. Respondent initially required student L.C. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of twelve dictionaries. However, because the books were stacked almost two feet higher than L.C.'s head, Respondent removed four of them from his arms. L.C. was then required to hold the remaining eight dictionaries for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Respondent also required student J.H. to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries stacked up to his eyes, for approximately twenty minutes. Respondent required student E.M., who had talked out of turn early in the class period, to leave her classroom, stand outside in the hallway with his back against the wall, arms extended, palms up, and hold a stack of six or seven heavy dictionaries for approximately ten to fifteen minutes. At one point during this ordeal, Respondent came out of the classroom and felt E.M.'s forehead to see if he were sweating. When she found that he was not sweating, she returned to her classroom, leaving E.M. outside, still holding the dictionaries. Most students who testified indicated they were disciplined toward the end of a class period, and accordingly, their discipline was automatically ended by the change of classes' bell. However, the foregoing incident, when E.M. was disciplined with books, suggests that Respondent's theory concerning that type of discipline was that once a misbehaving student began to sweat, he had experienced enough punishment. A teacher saw E.M. in the hallway and went to fetch the Principal, Jerry Dixon. Mr. Dixon observed E.M. to be "in a strain," tired, and drooping. When Mr. Dixon discovered what was going on, he told E.M. to go back into Respondent's classroom and take the books with him. Each of the five students disciplined with books was embarrassed by the process, and the posture of holding the dictionaries caused most of them discomfort. After the incident with E.M., Mr. Dixon counseled with Respondent. He advised her that disciplining students as E.M. had been disciplined with the dictionaries was unacceptable and that if she felt future situations were bad enough to warrant punishment, she should send the misbehaving child to his office for him to administer appropriate discipline. In early April 2001, Respondent approached student T.W. at his desk, got down "in his face," and told him that if he did not behave, she would paddle him as hard as she had paddled student C.R., and that was "pretty damn hard." C.R. testified that Respondent had, in fact, actually paddled him, but apparently he was not intimidated or concerned over the paddling. Also, T.W. was not intimidated by Respondent's threat, because he smiled and laughed. However, T.W. was so concerned about Respondent's use of profanity that he approached Principal Dixon in the cafeteria that day and asked the principal if it were "right" for a teacher to curse at a student. Subsequently, in the principal's office, T.W. explained to Mr. Dixon the situation concerning Respondent's use of profanity. Principal Dixon also then learned for the first time that Respondent had been taping her students' mouths as a form of discipline. Mr. Dixon investigated further by talking with other students who verified all or some of T.W.'s account. Mr. Dixon testified that he also believed the incident of Respondent disciplining J.C. with dictionaries in the hallway (see Finding of Fact 11) had occurred after he had told Respondent not to use that procedure. On April 5, 2001, Mr. Dixon met with Respondent to discuss the allegations. In their meeting, Respondent admitted placing tape over students' mouths. She also admitted cursing at T.W. She told Mr. Dixon she had been mad and upset at the time. On April 10, 2001, Mr. Dixon issued Respondent a letter of reprimand for her conduct. In this letter he reminded her that he had, at the time of E.M.'s discipline, told her she was supposed to send students to the office for discipline, not undertake it herself. On June 6, 2001, Mr. Dixon notified Respondent that he would not recommend her reappointment for the 2001-2002 School Year. His decision to not recommend Respondent's appointment was based, at least in part, upon Respondent's admitted inappropriate discipline and use of profanity. There is no evidence Respondent's disciplinary method of causing students to hold heavy books while excluded from the classroom learning environment was effective in improving their behavior in the classroom. There is no evidence this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, Principal Dixon, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, it was not sanctioned, and it is certain that the boys being disciplined were not being taught any curriculum while they were in the hallway. There is no evidence Respondent's method of taping her students' mouths shut and deliberately embarrassing them in the classroom before their peers was effective in teaching them to be quiet in class. There also is no evidence that this disciplinary methodology was sanctioned by the School District, the principal, or any recognized educational text. Indeed, the evidence is contrary. The disciplinary methods employed by Respondent were not approved or condoned by the Holmes County School Board or by the Poplar Springs School Administration. Her methods were inappropriate. Her inappropriate discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students exposed them to unnecessary embarrassment and disparagement at a time in their development when they were particularly emotionally vulnerable. Her methods of discipline and use of profanity with her Middle School students seriously reduced her effectiveness as an employee of the Holmes County School Board. Respondent failed to take reasonable efforts to protect her students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to their mental health and/or physical safety by employing these inappropriate methods of discipline.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order which: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 231.2615(1)(f)and (i) and Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a) and (e), Florida Administrative Code; Suspends Respondent's Educator's Certificate for a period of one year; Requires that, as a condition precedent to Respondent's re-employment as an educator in Florida following the suspension, Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation by a qualified provider as required by the Recovery Network Program; Requires that Respondent follow the recommended course of treatment, if any, resulting from her evaluation and that she provide written verification to the Department of her successful completion of the evaluation and/or treatment; and Provides that if Respondent is reemployed as an educator in Florida, she be placed on three years' probation, upon such terms as the Education Practices Commission deems appropriate, including but not limited to successful completion of a college level course in the area of classroom management. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda Crawford Post Office Box 573 Ashford, Alabama 36312-0573 J. David Holder, Esquire 24357 U.S. Highway 331, South Santa Rosa Beach, Florida 32459 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner may terminate Respondent’s employment as an instructional employee under a professional services contract either for failure to timely correct alleged performance deficiencies pursuant to Subsection 1012.34(3), Florida Statutes (2008),1 or for just cause, within the meaning of Subsection 1012.33(1)(a).
Findings Of Fact The School Board employed Respondent as a resource teacher at Village Oaks Elementary School (Village Oaks) from the start of the 2003-2004 school year until January 15, 2009. Ms. Dorcas Howard was the principal at Village Oaks during Respondent’s employment. Ms. Howard served as principal for 20 years and was responsible for evaluating teachers, including Respondent. Respondent’s duties as a resource teacher at Village Oaks included working with elementary school students who were not proficient in reading and math. Some of the students that Respondent taught read and spoke English as a second language. Respondent typically met with students in breakout sessions comprised of groups of five. Classroom teachers determined which students were to attend Respondent’s breakout sessions on the basis of the individual needs of each student. Respondent typically spent 30 minutes with each group. The Notice of Termination dated December 8, 2008, provides, in relevant part, that the School Board is relying on two statutory grounds for the termination of Respondent’s employment contract. One ground is that Respondent allegedly failed to correct performance deficiencies in violation of Subsection 1012.34(3). The second ground alleges that just cause, defined in Subsection 1012.33(1)(a), exists to terminate Respondent’s employment. For reasons stated hereinafter, a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the alleged performance deficiencies violate Subsection 1012.34(3). However, a preponderance of evidence does support a finding that just cause exists to terminate Respondent’s employment pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). The alleged violation of Subsection 1012.34(3) is based on an evaluation system known as the Collier Teacher Assessment System (CTAS). CTAS consists of 12 educator practices that are evaluated as inadequate, developing, and professional/accomplished. The CTAS evaluation of Respondent for the 2007-2008 school year resulted in developing marks in four practice areas: assessment, communication, learning environment, and planning. Assessment, planning, role of the teacher, and communication are integrated concepts. Respondent was often late in picking up students from regular classrooms for breakout sessions. On those occasions, Respondent did not provide 30 minutes of instruction to that group of students. Respondent was often unprepared. Respondent routinely did not explain the goals of the session. Respondent did not provide timely assessments to regular classroom teachers, and Respondent did not provide students with directions before reading and did not review the subject matter of the specific class. Respondent routinely did not review tests or prepare test results. Respondent frequently could not answer questions from the principal and other teachers about how students performed on tests. Respondent had no individualized lesson plans. Students often informed her where they were in a given text. Respondent often gave students inappropriate assignments. A professional services contract instructional employee who receives three or more developing marks is placed on a probationary status identified in the record as “Strand 3.” As a consequence of receiving four developing marks, Respondent was placed on Strand 3. Ms. Deborah Terry, director of staffing for Human Resources, Recruitment and Retention, notified Respondent that Respondent had been placed on Strand 3. Respondent had 90 days from the beginning of probation to correct identified deficiencies. A professional assistance team at Village Oaks was organized to assist Respondent. The principal directed Respondent to focus on non-proficient, third grade students. Throughout the probationary period, Ms. Howard observed that Respondent did not engage students in class. Respondent exhibited poor planning, and Respondent lacked adequate class preparation in reading. A high percentage of students were second language students, and Respondent did not have appropriate English Language Learners (ELL) strategies in place. Nor did Respondent have appropriate vocabulary instruction and developmental plans for her students. Respondent allowed students to engage in round robin reading in which remedial, struggling readers read one-after- the-other. Respondent did not discuss or prepare the students for what they were to read. Respondent did not use word follow up. Respondent did not engage students in discussion, and Respondent did not introduce word drill or word-attack skills to students. Respondent did not provide individualized, differentiated instruction or lesson planning for students. The students in Respondent’s sessions were not gaining academically. The principal and other members of the professional assistance team discussed their concerns with Respondent individually and in group sessions. Respondent did not provide regular classroom teachers with test results or assessments of students. The failure to provide regular test results and assessments was problematic. Resource intervention grades were important to each student’s overall grade. Resource intervention grades were averaged in to overall grades. The failure to receive grades created a gap in the reporting for intervention instructional time. During the professional assistance team meeting conducted on September 24, 2008, the team reviewed with Respondent the team concerns that lesson plans turned in were not used for instruction, follow up activities were inconsistent, daily activities were not based on the academic needs of the children, no formal assessments or reviews of student performance were prepared, and Respondent was continually late in picking up her students. Ms. Olwen Stewart-Bell, a team member, provided Respondent with a timer to assist Respondent in picking up students in a timely manner. In many instances, however, Respondent forgot to turn on the timer. By the end of September 2008, there was no indication of student progress. In addition, regular classroom teachers had become reluctant to send their students to Respondent for instruction. By the end of October 2008, Respondent had not responded to advice and assistance and had not improved. There were several times that Respondent was on the phone when she should have been teaching students. Respondent fell asleep in class, and Respondent was abusive to low-achieving students. At the meeting on October 30, 2008, it was evident students were not improving under Respondent’s tutelage. Planning remained poor, assessments did not drive instruction, no differentiated instruction was being provided, and regular classroom teachers did not want Respondent teaching their students. At the end of the probationary period, the principal determined that of the 12 educator accomplished practice areas, Respondent should receive inadequate marks in assessment, communication, planning, and the role of the teacher. Respondent was still developing in three other areas: continuous improvement, learning environment, and knowledge of subject matter. Ms. Howard informed Respondent of the evaluation. The evaluation fell below appropriate standards provided for in CTAS and set forth in Article 5.03 of the CBA. Article 5.03(f)(4)(vi) of the CBA provides, in relevant part: [T]en or more EAP areas must be rated at the professional level and no EAP may be at the inadequate level. Employees not meeting these criteria will be recommended for termination. As a consequence of Respondent’s failure to correct identified deficiencies and meeting acceptable standards, the principal recommended to the superintendent that Respondent be terminated from her employment. The evaluation of Respondent under Subsection 1012.34(3) was not based primarily on standardized testing data showing that students of Respondent performed poorly on standardized tests. The students that Respondent worked with were those most at risk of failing the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). However, the School Board submitted no evidence that any of the students under Respondent’s tutelage performed poorly on standardized tests, including the FCAT. Assuming arguendo that any of the students under Respondent’s instruction performed poorly on standardized tests, such as the FCAT, Petitioner submitted no evidence of a nexus showing that Respondent’s instruction caused the poor performance on annual standardized testing. A preponderance of evidence supports a finding of just cause to terminate Respondent’s professional services contract pursuant to Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). Respondent demonstrated an inability to discharge her educational duties by repeatedly failing to perform her educational duties and by repeatedly failing to communicate and relate to children in her classroom. Respondent deprived children in her classroom of a minimal educational experience.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Collier County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent’s professional services contract as an instructional employee for just cause defined in Subsection 1012.33(1)(a). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the application of Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, for a Florida Educator's Certificate should be denied for the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued on July 22, 2005, by Respondent, John Winn, acting in his capacity as the Commissioner of Education.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 28, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education notified Petitioner, Kenneth Crowder, that it intended to suspend, revoke, or limit his teaching certificate. The proposed action was based on allegations that Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with three female students, engaged in inappropriate conduct with a female teacher in December 2000, and was convicted of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. An administrative hearing was conducted with respect to Petitioner's Ohio teaching certificate on March 11 and 14, 2002. The hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 119 of the Ohio Revised Code. Petitioner appeared at the hearing, was represented by counsel, and testified on his own behalf. There were three alleged incidents involving allegations of Petitioner's inappropriate conduct with female students that were litigated during the Ohio administrative proceedings. The first alleged incident occurred during the 1999-2000 school year when Petitioner was employed at Northland High School. The other two incidents allegedly occurred during the 2000-2001 school year when Petitioner was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven High School. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 1999-2000 school year, while a teacher at Northland High School, Petitioner inappropriately touched Ms. Tranette Nicole Jackson, a student in his science class. At the time of the incident, Ms. Jackson was about fifteen and a high school freshman.3 During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Ms. Jackson testified that on March 21, 2000, Petitioner called Ms. Jackson up to his desk and told her he wanted to see her after class.4 At the end of class, with no one else present in the classroom, Ms. Jackson reported to Petitioner's desk. Petitioner then touched Ms. Jackson's leg and rubbed her skirt, raising the skirt. Petitioner then told Ms. Jackson that he needed to see her in the supply room, which was across the hall from the classroom. Ms. Jackson accompanied Petitioner into the supply room, where Petitioner put both hands on Ms. Jackson's buttocks and stated, "This is what I wanted to talk to you about. Keep it to yourself." Ms. Jackson testified that Petitioner then gave her a pass to her next class. Ms. Jackson testified that she was "confused," "scared," and "uncomfortable" about the incident and that she reported it to one of her teachers that same day. The incident was then reported to the school principal and the Franklin County Children Services. After the incident, Ms. Jackson was reassigned from Petitioner's science class to another class. During the Ohio proceedings, Petitioner testified that he never touched Ms. Jackson, but that he reprimanded her for her inappropriate attire. Petitioner testified that in instances where students had on inappropriate attire, the school policy required teachers to send such students to the front office. Notwithstanding the school policy, Petitioner testified that he spoke with Ms. Jackson alone and after class concerning her attire. This failure to abide by school policy lends credence to Ms. Jackson's version of events. Moreover, Petitioner's complete inability on cross-examination during the instant hearing to provide his version of the incident leads the undersigned to accept Ms. Jackson's testimony.5 In the 2000-2001 school year, Petitioner was transferred from Northland High School to Brookhaven High School (Brookhaven), where he taught ninth grade science. The Ohio State Board of Education alleged that during the 2000-2001 school year, while he was employed as a teacher at Brookhaven, Petitioner engaged in two incidents involving inappropriate conduct with female students and one incident involving inappropriate conduct with a female teacher. In one instance, it was alleged that on December 19, 2000, about a day before the Christmas break, Petitioner asked a female student, identified as Student 2, to come to his room after school and give him a hug. It was alleged that the student refused to comply with Petitioner's request and reported the alleged incident to school officials. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Judith Gore, the assistant principal for student services at Brookhaven, one school official to whom Student 2 reported the incident, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Gore testified that in January 2001, Student 2 told her that on or about December 19, 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 and told her to give him a hug after school and that when she came to the room she should not wear her jacket. Ms. Gore also testified that Student 2 reported that although Petitioner approached her and requested a hug in December 2000, Student 2 told her that she reported it in January 2001, soon after and because Petitioner approached her in January 2001, after the Christmas break, and asked why she had not come to his room and hugged him in December 2000, before the winter holiday. Ms. Gore also testified that as a result of Petitioner's comments, the student was extremely uncomfortable. Ms. Gore testified that she later attended a conference with the student's father and Petitioner regarding the incident. Student 2 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding. However, Petitioner testified at the Ohio administrative hearing that he asked Student 2 for a hug on or about December 19, 2000, the day before winter recess. Petitioner testified that Student 2 was in the hallway, and he said to her, "Hey, yeah, give me a hug. It's Christmas time. I wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas." Petitioner testified that at the time he requested that Student 2 give him a hug, she was not in any of his classes, but was one of his student assistants. In fact, Petitioner testified that when he requested that Student 2 give him a hug after school, she was not in his classroom, but was in the hall at her locker. Petitioner testified that because December 19, 2000, was the day before the Christmas recess, it was not unusual for students to hug him. However, Petitioner testified that Student 2 did not make any overtures indicating she wanted to hug him. Rather, Petitioner testified that he approached Student 2 and asked her to hug him. Based on Petitioner's testimony in the Ohio hearing and the instant proceeding, regarding Student 2, it is found that in December 2000, Petitioner approached Student 2 while she was in the hall at her locker and asked her to give him a hug. Ms. Gore testified that during December 2000, a different female student, Student 3, complained to her that Petitioner had touched her buttocks while passing behind her. Student 3 did not testify at the Ohio administrative proceeding, and no evidence was presented at the Ohio administrative proceeding or the instant administrative hearing to establish this charge. At the Ohio administrative proceeding, the Ohio State Board of Education litigated the allegation that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate behavior with a teacher at Brookhaven. Mary Williams, who was a co-worker of Petitioner at Brookhaven High School, testified in the Ohio administrative proceeding. Ms. Williams testified that, in December 2000, while she was standing at the counter in the main office of the school, Petitioner passed by and intentionally brushed against her buttocks. Ms. Williams also testified that the office was large enough so that Mr. Crowder needed not to touch her at all. Ms. Williams was upset by Petitioner's actions and informed him, in graphic language, what would happen if he ever did it again. Petitioner then apologized to Ms. Williams. Petitioner's testimony concerning the incident involving Ms. Williams is conflicting. For instance, Petitioner testified during the Ohio proceedings that if he brushed his hand against Mr. Williams' buttocks, it was purely accidental. During the instant proceedings, however, Petitioner acknowledged that he touched Ms. Williams' buttocks, but explained that it occurred accidentally as a result of his carrying a meter stick through the office area. At no time during Petitioner's prior testimony did he mention that the touching occurred with a meter stick, or even that he was carrying a meter stick. Accordingly, the undersigned finds Ms. Williams' testimony to be more credible. John Tornes, the personnel director for Columbus City Schools, testified at the Ohio administrative proceeding that as a result of the accumulation of allegations and incidents, Petitioner was assigned to work at home, effective January 29, 2001. The following day, January 30, 2001, Petitioner was assigned to a location where he had no contact with students. On March 26, 2001, Petitioner resigned from the Columbus City Schools, effective June 8, 2001. Mr. Tornes testified that Petitioner was not eligible for rehire. Mr. Tornes explained: During every year of Mr. Crowder's employment, there was an allegation of sexual harassment or abuse; three straight years of it while at Crestview Middle School [sic],[6] while at Northland High School, and then the incident just kept ballooning at Brookhaven High School. . . . His behavior became so questionable that it was no longer feasible for the district to continue his employment. The Ohio State Board of Education litigated the issue of Petitioner's conviction of disorderly conduct, which was amended from a charge of domestic violence. During the Ohio proceedings, Jill S. Harris testified on behalf of the Ohio State Board of Education. Ms. Harris testified that for about a year, beginning in 1999, she was involved in a rocky relationship with Petitioner. During that period, Petitioner and Ms. Harris were living together. According to Ms. Harris, on October 7, 2000, Petitioner, after a night of drinking, arrived home at approximately 5:30 a.m., at which point a violent argument ensued. During their confrontation, Petitioner struck Ms. Harris twice in the face, bruising her chin and cheek and cutting her lip. At some point during the argument, Ms. Harris summoned the police. However, when they arrived, Ms. Harris informed the responding officers that nothing was wrong due to her fear of retaliation from Petitioner. Ms. Harris testified that after the police left, the Petitioner picked up a glass table and threw it at her, breaking the table. Petitioner also grabbed Ms. Harris, at which point she cut her foot on the broken glass. Ms. Harris then left the house and called the police from the vehicle she was driving. Soon after Ms. Harris called, police officers met Ms. Harris and returned with her to the house where she and Petitioner lived. When they arrived there, Petitioner was not there. Officer Sheri Laverack was one of the police officers who met with Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident, and investigated the matter. At the Ohio administrative proceedings, Officer Laverack testified that soon after the altercation between Ms. Harris and Petitioner, she observed that Ms. Harris' "lip had been busted and her face was swelling and the bottom of her foot was cut." Officer Laverack also observed that there was bruising around one of Ms. Harris' eyes. At both the Ohio administrative proceeding and in the instant proceeding, Petitioner denied that he struck Ms. Harris in the face and caused the injuries to her face that were observed by Officer Laverack. However, it is found that his testimony was not found to be credible by the hearing examiner presiding over the Ohio administrative hearing. Petitioner has offered conflicting testimony with respect to the incident involving Ms. Harris and the cause of her facial injuries. During the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner testified that he slammed his hand down on the glass table, causing it to come up and hit her. At no time during the Ohio proceeding did Petitioner testify that Ms. Harris lifted up the table or in any way contributed to the facial injuries she suffered. However, during the instant proceeding, Petitioner testified that when he hit the glass table, Ms. Harris "pulled the top of it up, and I think it [the glass portion of the table] hit her in the chin or something to that effect." Petitioner then testified that "I don't really recall . . . that's what I vaguely recall." Petitioner's testimony concerning the October 7, 2000, incident and how Ms. Harris sustained the injuries to her face is inconsistent and not credible. In light of the multiple injuries to Ms. Harris' face (a cut to her lip, swelling on the right side of her face, and bruising around her eye), it is unlikely that Ms. Harris' injuries could have been sustained in the manner described by Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony in the instant proceeding that he did not hit Ms. Harris is not credible. On the other hand, given the nature of the injuries, it is more probable that Ms. Harris' injuries resulted from Petitioner's hitting her, as she testified. It is found that Ms. Harris' testimony that Petitioner struck her in the face was credible. Moreover, Ms. Harris' credible testimony was substantiated by the testimony of Officer Laverack, who observed the injuries to Ms. Harris on October 7, 2000, shortly after the incident. As a result of the October 7, 2000, incident, Ms. Harris filed domestic violence and assault charges against Petitioner. Ultimately, as a result of the incident, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the amended charge of disorderly conduct. Pursuant to an agreement with the State of Ohio, Petitioner was sentenced to 30 days in jail, with the sentence being suspended if and when Petitioner made restitution of $1,000 to Ms. Harris for the damage to her table. Petitioner paid the restitution. At the time of the Ohio administrative proceeding, Petitioner had a four-year middle school teaching certificate with an expiration date of June 30, 2002, and had applied for a temporary teaching certificate. On April 2, 2002, the Ohio hearing examiner submitted a recommended order to the Ohio State Board of Education. In the recommended order, the hearing officer found that Petitioner sexually abused Ms. Jackson, inappropriately touched Ms. Williams, and committed an act of violence against Ms. Harris. In addition, the hearing examiner recommended that the Ohio State Board of Education revoke Petitioner's teaching certificate and deny his application for a temporary teaching certificate. In a Resolution dated May 16, 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education revoked Petitioner's teaching certificate. The Resolution was adopted by the Ohio State Board of Education at its meeting on May 14, 2002. The Ohio State Board of Education's Resolution stated that it was revoking Petitioner's middle school teaching certificate "based upon his 2001 conviction for disorderly conduct stemming from domestic violence and inappropriate sexual contact with three female students and one female teacher during 2000 and 2001." Petitioner appealed the decision of the Ohio State Board of Education. The Ohio State Board of Education's decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Ohio Court of Common Pleas on August 11, 2003, in Case No. 02CVF06-6230.7 The testimony of Ms. Harris, Ms. Williams, Ms. Jackson, Officer Laverack, Mr. Tornes, and Ms. Gore in the Ohio proceeding constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule under Subsection 90.803(22), Florida Statutes.8 Therefore, the testimony of the foregoing named individuals in the Ohio administrative proceeding is sufficient in itself to support a finding of fact and does not run afoul of Subsection 120.57(1)(c), Florida Statutes.9 Petitioner's conduct fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defines good moral character. By any reasonable standard, it is wrong for a teacher to brush his hands on the buttocks of a student and of a fellow colleague. The wrong is compounded when the teacher instructs the student to conceal the fact that he engaged in such conduct. During his testimony, Petitioner admitted that he asked a high school student to give him a hug. By any reasonable standard, this conduct fell short of right behavior that defines good moral character. Petitioner's testimony regarding the circumstances and appropriateness of such a request is not credible or persuasive. Neither does Petitioner's explanation provide a reasonable basis for a teacher to solicit a hug from any student. Petitioner's conduct of committing acts of violence against the woman with whom he lived likewise fell short of the reasonable standard of right behavior that defined good moral behavior. The three incidents in which Petitioner engaged in inappropriate conduct with Ms. Jackson, Student 2, and Ms. Williams, occurred at school. The incident involving Ms. Jackson, one of his students, occurred on school grounds in March 2000. The conduct in which Petitioner engaged with Student 2 and with Ms. Williams, his colleague, occurred at school in December 2000. Petitioner's pattern of conduct with two female students and a female teacher demonstrates that he is an unsuitable candidate for a teaching certificate. Moreover, Petitioner's conduct as established by the facts of this case, particularly as it directly involved students at the school, bears directly on his fitness to teach in the public schools of Florida. The evidence failed to establish that Petitioner possesses the good moral character required of a teacher in this state. For this reason, Petitioner is not eligible for certification. The evidence establishes that Petitioner committed an act or acts for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has been guilty of gross immorality of an act involving moral turpitude. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has had a teaching certificate revoked in another state. The evidence establishes that Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of the misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. The evidence establishes that Petitioner failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or public safety. The evidence establishes that Petitioner intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. The evidence establishes that Petitioner exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The evidence establishes that Petitioner has engaged in harassment or discriminatory conduct, which unreasonably interfered in an individual's performance of professional or work responsibilities or with the orderly processes of education or which created a hostile, intimidating, abusive, offensive, or oppressive environment and, further, failed to make reasonable effort to assure that each individual was protected from such harassment or discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a teaching certificate and providing that he be permanently barred from re- application pursuant to Subsection 1012.796(7)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2006.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, as the Commissioner of Education, on behalf of the Education Practices Commission, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of disciplining teachers certified by the State of Florida. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent held a Florida Educator’s Certificate, number 615411, covering the areas of physical education and health education which is valid through June 30, 2003. The juvenile justice system operates a facility for incarcerated minor males located in Okeechobee County, Florida. The facility, named the Eckerd Youth Detention Center (Eckerd), contracts with the Washington County School Program to provide educational services for the minor males. At all times pertinent to the allegations of this case, Respondent was employed by Washington County at Eckerd to teach physical education. On or about April 21, 1994, Respondent used inappropriate language toward an employee at Eckerd. Specifically, Respondent called a disciplinary dean a "nigger." During this heated encounter, which was provoked by Respondent, the dean also used inappropriate language toward Respondent and he was subsequently reprimanded for such conduct. Respondent told another employee at Eckerd that the dean "had a body odor that don’t stop." On another occasion, Respondent was unnecessarily loud in accusing an instructor in the Diversified Career Training (DCT) program of providing contraband to one of the students. This incident occurred in the office of the DCT administrator and, despite efforts to get the Respondent to be quiet, resulted in an inappropriate, public accusation of the painting instructor. During the 1993/94 school year, students complained that Respondent called them inappropriate names such as "crack babies." Two Eckerd employees overheard Respondent’s language and confirmed the allegations made by the students. It is not, however, confirmed that all student allegations were accurate. The students at Eckerd were there due to their serious behavioral problems. Many were aggressive. Some were violent. All were deemed less than credible on occasion. Had they been model students, they would not have been placed at Eckerd. Nevertheless, these students were entitled to the same considerations given to all students governed by state rules. That is, they should not be subject to disparaging remarks. Prior to the 1993/94 school year, Respondent was advised that she needed to improve areas of her performance at Eckerd. Specifically, Respondent was told of a need to maintain appropriate interpersonal relationships and to improve in the evaluation of students. Respondent was also advised that her abrasive and inappropriate vocabulary needed improvement. On March 29, 1994, the administrative staff of the Washington County School Board decided to not re-employ Respondent for the following school year. Notification of this decision was provided to Respondent on March 30, 1994. On May 10, 1994, Respondent was suspended from her duties for the remainder of the school year. Respondent argues that the actions of the school to terminate her employment (and inferentially this action) were in retaliation for Respondent’s claims of violations of various requirements concerning exceptional education students. Respondent suggested that various records were not maintained as required by law. Such argument has not been deemed credible or persuasive. Moreover, Respondent’s complaint with regard to these allegations was resolved in favor of the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order reprimanding Respondent for the violations set forth above, requiring Respondent to take appropriate remedial courses to improve her interpersonal skills, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Department of Education 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jerry W. Whitmore, Program Director Professional Practices Services Department of Education Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 701 Mirror Lake Drive Apartment 109 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Sallie M. Smith 2605 Chesterfield Drive Fort Pierce, Florida 34982
